The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously ruled not to issue any interim measures in the case of Cain Georgescu v Romania.
The case concerns the annulling by the Constitutional Court of Romania of the presidential election of 2024.
The applicant in this case is a Romanian national who was running for president. In November 2024, the first round of presidential elections took place in Romania, with the second round due in December 2024. The applicant was a candidate in the election and reached the runoff. Two days before the second round of elections was due to take place the Constitutional Court of Romania annulled the entire election process by virtue of Article 146(f) of the Constitution, due to concerns of Russian interference in favour of the independent candidate, Mr Georgescu, in the election process. It ordered that the elections should be reorganised from the start by the Government.
In December 2024, the applicant brought proceedings to the ECtHR alleging that his rights provided for in Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention as well as Protocol No.1 of the Convention (right to free election) had been infringed. The applicant sought interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, against the decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania that annulled the election process. He specifically requested the suspension of the effects of the court decision until his application to the ECtHR had been decided. He requested the court oblige the government of Romania to resume the electoral process, respecting the results of the first round and to organise the second round of the presidential elections.
The court reiterated that under Rule 39, which governs the application of interim measures, that interim measures were only applicable in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a convention right which, on account of its nature, would not be susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation. Such measures could only be adopted in exceptional circumstance where it was necessary in the interest of the parties or proper conduct of the proceedings.
The court rejected Mr Georgescu’s request as outside the scope of Rule 39.